One 'yes' vote, one 'heck no' vote

The voter ID bill makes sense.

Voting for members of urban renewal agency boards on a countywide basis does not.

With the former issue, the Idaho House sent to the Senate this week a bill which would require citizens to show ID or at least sign an affidavit before voting. While nobody is reacting to widespread allegations of voter fraud, this seems a reasonable step to avoid exactly that. Businesses require patrons to show a form of ID when writing a check on a minor purchase. Why wouldn't we, as a society, take at least that measure of precaution in protecting this invaluable right?

For some insight into the voter ID issue from the man who oversees voting in Kootenai County, please see the My Turn column on the front page of today's Local section.

Now, about urban renewal.

We have no doubt the state's urban renewal laws, nearly half a century old, are in need of some renovation themselves. But a bill that would allow a whole county to elect a city's urban renewal board members is literally going too far.

We think Coeur d'Alene's urban renewal agency, Lake City Development Corp., and taxpayers alike would benefit by a slight shift in the way board membership is comprised. The LCDC board has nine members, two of them sitting City Council members. All nine are appointed by the mayor and council.

If nine is the best number, we'd recommend keeping the two City Council representatives but making two of the other positions elected seats. That way, constituents will be able to elect two additional fellow citizens who can further the mission of the board while assuring the public's desire for transparency and accountability are being upheld. We also think the election should be restricted to the city in which an urban renewal agency operates because there the impact is greatest.

Wolf tracks go way back

Whatever you may think of wolf hunting, don't say it's a knee-jerk reaction without precedent. In fact, government support for the hunt goes back to colonial times, when the East wasn't so different from the wild, wild West.

In December 1753, the Boston Gazette reported that anyone killing wolves is

"intitled to the following Premiums out of the publick Treasury, that is to say, For every such grown Wolf of one Year old, Four Pounds: For every Wolf's Whelp under one Year old and not taken out of the Belly of a Catamount, forty Shillings."